Scoot: Anti-sodomy laws are an invasion of our privacy

by Scoot,posted Apr 17 2014 6:03PM

Politics should be about substance, not symbolism.

As the 2014 Louisiana legislative session continues in Baton Rouge, we are again reminded that state politicians are often motivated by symbolic gestures rather than a true interest in advancing the state of Louisiana into modern times.

Among the ridiculous legislation that has surfaced during the current session, the Louisiana House overwhelmingly rejected a bill that would have removed the state’s unconstitutional anti-sodomy law from the books. With a law that defines sodomy as a crime still on the books - Louisiana embraces the political dark ages.

Baton Rouge-area police had been using the antiquated anti-sodomy law to arrest gay men, but the district attorney refused to charge the men because the law cannot be enforced. So why is it still on the books?

In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the case of Lawrence vs. Texas, that any law banning sodomy is unconstitutional. Sodomy is defined as “unnatural sex.” Without resorting to graphic descriptions, how should “unnatural sex” be defined? A strong argument can be made that sodomy applies to any sex act outside of the basic missionary position, which would be a very prudish definition of intimacy between consenting adults.

It is important to know how the case of Lawrence vs. Texas reached the Supreme Court in the first place. In the Houston area, a neighbor didn’t like the gay couple that lived next door, so he spied on them by looking in their window and caught them having sex. The man called police and claimed he saw a weapon. Police arrived and apparently caught the men engaged in sex or concluded they had sex and they were arrested and charged with the crime of committing sodomy.

The case that put anti-sodomy laws before the U.S. Supreme Court started when a neighbor maliciously and blatantly invaded the privacy of his neighbors and then called in a false weapons charge for the purpose of having them arrested for activity he disapproved of.

The Supreme Court ruled that any laws banning sodomy are unconstitutional based on right to privacy. The reason the sodomy case went to the Supreme Court reveals the desire to control the behavior of others that an individual or a group deems inappropriate. But since sodomy also defines physical acts between consenting heterosexual couples, why is it only applied to homosexuals? The most accepted definitions of sodomy do not restrict “unnatural sex” to homosexuals.

The definition of sodomy is not orientation specific – it applies to both homosexuals and heterosexuals – unless the motivation is to support an anti-gay agenda.

The House vote to reject a bill that would take the logical and constitutional step of removing the anti-sodomy law from the books tells us a lot about the mentality of some of our legislators who are acting on behalf of the voters that put them in office.

The mentality of those who continue to look for reasons to judge others by their specific moral beliefs shows that many citizens in this state have not evolved from the political Neanderthals that once roamed this area. As the battle against banning same-sex marriage appears to be over – there is now an effort to use religious beliefs or anti-sodomy laws to resurrect the moral battle against homosexuality.

The Constitution and the basic understanding of freedom in America guarantee equality for all – not just those most like us. There was a time when blacks were discriminated against and the justification was based on a sense of superiority. Today, discrimination against homosexuals is also based on a sense of superiority that is achieved through the condemnation of the “homosexual sins.” Our sins and the sins of our family and friends and people we most identify with are accepted as “falling short” and those sinners accepted. But those who desperately cling to the notion that homosexuality is an abomination fail to see their own hypocrisy.

Louisiana has wonderful traditions and a rich and colorful culture and everyone should encourage the perservation of our traditions and our culture. But no one in Louisiana – citizens or politicians – should be allowed to support the tradition of discrimination even though it was part of our history.

Refusing to remove an unconstitutional law from the books represents a political ignorance in our state. The more we denounce the judgment and hate that justifies discrimination of any kind – the more likely we are to shame those who continue to support discrimination.

It is true that some people will never change – but it is also important for those of us who believe in equality to speak louder than the voices of those who continue to support the attitudes of the dark ages.

If the anti-sodomy law is unconstitutional – therefore meaningless – keeping it on the books in our state only satisfies the small-minded citizens of this state who fear change. It does not change behavior.

Anti sodomy laws are very good and prevent things such as same sex marriage and perversion

04/17/2014 8:21PM

You have no shame

Talking about this filth of gay issues during Easter week

04/17/2014 8:24PM

To the previous comment -

Are you critical of the LA legislature for taking up this issue during Easter Week? Are you critical of the TV stations, newspapers and everyone else for covering it!

04/17/2014 11:27PM

Health reasons

Actually it's for public health safety!! That trash has spread many diseases!

04/18/2014 10:40AM

UnNatural Sex is not the same as Medically Dangerous Sex

Scoot, you mention Substance over symbolism, correct? Well, isn't Un-Natural Sex very different than Medically Dangerous Sex?
That is, Doesn't the medical community recommend that you, "Wash your hands after you go to the bathroom."?
Yet, now there are some in the medical community that now say it's OK to "Sleep with the waste that gets flushed down in the toilet?" and that it's possible to live a perfectly normal life.

04/18/2014 10:41AM

Black and White is not the same as UnClean and Clean

Are homosexual acts really the same as being left handed or right handed?
Are homosexual acts really the same as having black skin color or white skin color?
Are homosexual acts really the same as having curly hair or straight hair?
Or, are homosexual acts really the same as being unclean or clean?

And for you medical students:
The orifice where #2 objects are expelled from has a far thinner skin than the orifice where babies come from. The orifice where babies come from also produces secretions to minimize friction during baby making aka known as love making, which is very unlike the previously mentioned orifice.
That orifice, where #2 objects are expelled from, is meant to have objects pass in one direction only and pass very very infrequently. And certainly not in two directions and certainly not at high speed, nor with high repetitions. Yet if this happens, then that thin skin has a tendency to tear easily, hence, blood to feces contact, which is a medically dangerous contact.
The orifice where #2 objects are expelled from was "born that way", just in case you didn't know.

04/18/2014 10:44AM

Hate Crimes nowhere near as dangerous as Gay-On-Gay Crimes

Should gays really be worried about Hate Crimes and Homophobia? Or should GLBT and Gays be worried about Gay-On-Gay crimes which are exponentially more in number?
That is, shouldn't those that KNOWINGLY infect their partner with HIV belong in jail?
For example, how can the tiny GLBT community with a 1% to 3% population demographic consistently have the highest HIV rates since AIDS was discovered 30 years ago? Shouldn't all the safe sex and condom talk for the last 30 years have made a difference in the GLBT HIV infection rate by now?
But if a Gay person, KNOWINGLY infects other Gays, wouldn't be a Gay-On-Gay crime? And wouldn't that be a FELONY? Perhaps 1st or 2nd Degree Murder if they die of AIDS? And considering gays have the highest HIV infection rates, wouldn't that make all these Hate Crimes against GLBT almost insignificant when compared to the number of Gay-On-Gay crimes of knowingly infecting their partners?